On the 18/11/17, it is alleged that I "entered and stopped in a box junction where prohibited".

The junction in question contains 2 lanes, me and a queue of traffic in the right, and nothing in the left, either at the entrance, nor the exit. Just after traffic stops, stranding me in the box, a BMW behind me pulls out into the left lane, VERY narrowly avoiding a collision with a cyclist.

In my appeal, I reasoned that I was unaware that traffic ahead of me was coming to a stop, but that even though I stopped, I could have left the box via the left hand lane - choosing not to do so to avoid a collision with the cyclist.It's not the strongest of appeals, but what annoys me the most about the rejection of the appeal, is that it doesn't appear to have taken into account anything that I said - it is merely a template letter that copies and pastes "Rule 174 of the highway code" and a quote from a "recent judgement in a similar case" - which just says stopping in a box junction is prohibited.The rejection gives me until the 23rd to pay the reduced amount (which is less time then I think I am actually due!) but I was wondering if anyone could provide any further advice/insight before I cough up.

Having read this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t114838.html, it appears that Richmond council are pulling the same trick, cutting two days off their deadlines. Also, similarly, the rejection of the initial appeal failed to address the points of appeal.The linked case won because the council failed to provide evidence, but are these two points likely to form a valid/winning appeal?

The last day by which you can lodge an appeal is mis-stated . You have 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice. This is two working days after posting so the 11th. The 28th day would be the 7th

They must consider your representation, nothing in the rejection suggests they have

6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is—

(a) at a junction between two or more roads;

A case re this

2170285940

The Appellant attended his personal hearings.I have heard the Appellant's explanation as to why he had to stop in the junction. I have also noted his evidence3 that the stoppage was brief and no construction was caused. I do not think that these factors offer him a defence.The Appellant did point out further the length of the junction and I note that the exit of the box junction exceeded the junction by at least one car length.The prohibition applies to a box junction. A “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads. Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements.I allow the appeal.

The first page of the PCn states if payment or representations are not made before the end of the 28 day period beginning with the date of notice, a charge cert may be issued.This is wrong representations may be made up to the end of the period beginning with date of service, some two days later. A charge cert cannot be issued until that time either.

C'mon OP, I know we all like to think that we're good drivers but you didn't stop until after the cyclist had passed you: you didn't see them. Luckily the video only shows a potential contravention and not a cyclist wrapped around a tree. The cyclist was shocked and can be seen stopping further on.

But this is not the point.

Rather than look at this subjectively, can we just look at the objective info, which unfortunately is incomplete.

You stopped twice. The first time for less than 2 seconds, you then moved on and stopped again, this time when the cyclist came past. Unfortunately the video is incomplete, but that's the authority's problem, not yours. It's their task to show that you stopped contrary to law for more than a trivial period, and IMO the video does not, it leaves the issue hanging

There are no appeal grounds of procedural impropriety with LLATFL Act contraventions, so where do you go with the improper drafting of the NOR?

C'mon OP, I know we all like to think that we're good drivers but you didn't stop until after the cyclist had passed you: you didn't see them. Luckily the video only shows a potential contravention and not a cyclist wrapped around a tree. The cyclist was shocked and can be seen stopping further on.

But this is not the point.

Rather than look at this subjectively, can we just look at the objective info, which unfortunately is incomplete.

You stopped twice. The first time for less than 2 seconds, you then moved on and stopped again, this time when the cyclist came past. Unfortunately the video is incomplete, but that's the authority's problem, not yours. It's their task to show that you stopped contrary to law for more than a trivial period, and IMO the video does not, it leaves the issue hanging

There are no appeal grounds of procedural impropriety with LLATFL Act contraventions, so where do you go with the improper drafting of the NOR?

@ HCA.

Is that a question for the OP or a general one coz I think you know the answer Have you got the right car the first silver car not the one that almost collides with the cyclist?

C'mon OP, I know we all like to think that we're good drivers but you didn't stop until after the cyclist had passed you: you didn't see them. Luckily the video only shows a potential contravention and not a cyclist wrapped around a tree. The cyclist was shocked and can be seen stopping further on.

But this is not the point.

Rather than look at this subjectively, can we just look at the objective info, which unfortunately is incomplete.

You stopped twice. The first time for less than 2 seconds, you then moved on and stopped again, this time when the cyclist came past. Unfortunately the video is incomplete, but that's the authority's problem, not yours. It's their task to show that you stopped contrary to law for more than a trivial period, and IMO the video does not, it leaves the issue hanging

There are no appeal grounds of procedural impropriety with LLATFL Act contraventions, so where do you go with the improper drafting of the NOR?

@ HCA.

Is that a question for the OP or a general one coz I think you know the answer

"The penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case". This was used for parking maladministration before the TMA 2004 added Procedural Impropriety".

My confusion and apologies to the OP. By the way, I think it's a Volvo.

Anyway, the OP was stopped for more than a trivial period having entered the junction without having a clear exit or (and I keep going on about the driver's as opposed to the camera's view) any idea about the traffic conditions ahead.

The contravention is clearly established IMO.

Which leaves us with the NOR.

Why does the 'penalty exceed' NOW, it doesn't. It's a prospective not current issue. The OP's appeal would be registered after the date in the letter because this is standard practice for ETA. So, what's left?

And I'll answer my own question: playing brinkmanship with the authority regarding a CC at which point 'the penalty exceeds' might kick in.

Given the absolute clarity of the contravention, what's the smart play? IMO, paying the discount.

Indeed the contravention is made out To continue to argue otherwise would risk alienating any adjudicator But to my mind the authority must serve valid documents to enforce a penalty. This is the case in the courts and is so at tribunal.

The PCN, last paragraph of page 1 makes the same error as in this case.

2170531457

The Appellant is represented by Mr Dishman.The third paragraph of the PCN states that the penalty of £130 must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. This is as provided by law. The next paragraph then states that "If the Penalty harge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period and no representations have been made an increased charge of 50% to £195 may be payable."The time allowed for making representations is 28 days from the service of the PCN, not the date of the PCN. The PCN has therefore mis-described what it is required to state. It cannot be upheld. I allow the appeal.

I have others on the same ground, as i am sure does Mr M who won a few on this only this week.

The NOR tells you, you must appeal by a certain date. IT tells you the wrong date, and also fails to tell you that the adjudicator may extend the time

The OP's appeal would be registered after the date in the letter because this is standard practice for ETA.

I would argue this is not relevant because the recipient of such an NoR cannot know that they may still submit an appealand, indeed, then may not. This because they are clearly misinformed.There is further potential to prejudice the OP because they may need that very day (or indeed, such longerperiod as an adjudicator may allow) to compile a suitable appeal.

We sometimes have to forget that we know procedures inside out and what we know.i.e. Joe Public simply doesn't know and can't readily discover, that all he need do is to 'register'an appeal and detail later.

PMB has quoted from a case where the statutory PCN, the fundamental notice in all these proceedings, was defective. But this is not the case here, it's the NOR whose faults IMO will not weigh as much with an adjudicator given that PI cannot be applied.

PMB has quoted from a case where the statutory PCN, the fundamental notice in all these proceedings, was defective. But this is not the case here, it's the NOR whose faults IMO will not weigh as much with an adjudicator given that PI cannot be applied.

No ,HCA this is a case where the PCN is flawed first, the NOR i believe could well be fatal. It gives the wrong Date not period